TOPICS
TOPICS
Senate committee passes 'plain English' bill
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Thursday passed legislation that would require federal agencies to purge their rules, forms, letters and other documents of confusing bureaucratic language and replace it with simple English.
The bill, which cleared on a voice vote without discussion, would require federal agencies to launch programs within six months for translating their documents into "plain language," and to file periodic reports to Congress on the progress of the efforts.
Some agencies already have programs to improve the quality of their documents. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission published an instruction guide, entitled "Plain English Handbook," for its regulations and document writers. And a private group, Plain Language Action, has put out a similar guide book, "The Federal Plain Language Guidelines."
The project to straighten out the convoluted sentences and paragraphs of government prose is expected to take many years because it involves tens of thousands of documents. Moreover, the government's culture of obfuscation will not be easy to reform, supporters of the plain language bill acknowledge.
A version of the bill cleared the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee earlier this year and is awaiting approval by the full chamber. Its sponsor, Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, introduced the measure after coming to the conclusion that the incomprehensibility of many government benefit forms was frustrating their purpose.
The Senate version of the bill was introduced by Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, who was present at the markup but did not speak on the measure.
In recent statements, Akaka has said his bill would "save the American people a great deal of time, energy and money spent wading through overly complicated" forms for federal taxes, veterans benefits, Medicare and Social Security, and other programs.
Akaka said the switch to plain language would make the government more efficient and transparent, and easier to hold accountable.
In one difference with the Senate bill, the House bill contains an added provision requiring federal agencies to use English in their documents "to the maximum extent possible." In the Oversight and Government Reform Committee markup of the legislation, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., argued that the provision would not "unduly" prohibit the use of other languages.
Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., agreed to accept Foxx's provision but warned that the issue would be revisited if it holds up full House passage of the overall bill.
COMMENTS
- “Just Saying”, Touché and well put. I stand corrected; and also stand in jeopardy of losing my beloved “independent” status in this heated election year. In plain English, my point was that I’ve seen folks profess a desire for minimal governmental intrusion into their lives but wish for the government to step in and legislate where they themselves feel threatened. Regardless this discussion, as many do, motivated me to do some research. Evidently, there has been much controversy since the birth of our nation. In 1914, President Theodore Roosevelt stated, "We have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house." Over the centuries, we’ve seen many waves of immigrants, mostly from Europe; each met with suspicion and fear. The ACLU (an organization often both reviled and praised) believes that English-only laws can violate the U.S. Constitution's protection of due process (especially in courts where no translation service would be offered), equal protection (where English-only ballots would be used where bilingual ones were available in the past), and public safety would suffer (where safety, direction, and information signs would be in English only). Personally, it doesn’t bother me all that much; but that could be all the time I spent overseas being “the foreigner”. I must admit that arguments such as that presented by “U.S. English”, an advocate group for "Official English", give me food for thought. To summarize, their belief is that "the passage of English as the official language will help to expand opportunities for immigrants to learn and speak English, the single greatest empowering tool that immigrants must have to succeed." But if the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) wasn’t passed because it was deemed unnecessary, I would certainly deem the “English Only” movement unnecessary; for we truly are a melting pot. We achieve our unique place in the mankind’s history because of the diversity of our people brought together to sing the praises of freedom. We are a choir singing out both beautiful and terrible in its strength and sound. Of many national origins, we still speak with many tongues but one mind; “Let freedom reign!” Tip off Posted June 4, 2008 2:47 PM
- Tip, my party affiliation is my personal business, just as yours is, and is not relevant to this discussion. Let's just say that I am an American who is tired of feeling like a stranger in my own country. If my grandparents and millions of other immigrants could come here and learn English because they wanted to be Americans, so can the current crop. The biggest difference I see is that many current immigrants, particularly of the illegal variety, want no part of America other than our dollars. They want to stay with their own kind, speak their own languages, keep their own customs, and not assimilate the way previous generations did, in our famous "melting pot". This is what I, and millions of other Americans, object to. From what you wrote, apparently you have mixed feelings on this as well. (P.S., regarding your comments about Little Italy, New Orleans, etc., that's a red herring, and you know it. Making English the official language of the U.S. will have absolutely no effect on ethnic enclaves like these, because it would only apply to official government forms and business, not restaurant menus, so you can still order meals in another language, if you so desire!) Just Saying Posted May 8, 2008 3:02 PM
- Once more the Devil’s Advocate rears his hoary head. “English is THE language of the United States, and all government forms and business should reflect that fact, and be conducted in English as much as possible. ” While I understand the sentiments, I wonder at the party. No, really; I wonder the political party affiliation of the poster “Just Saying”. But I really hear this cry a lot and wonder … who makes it. I’ve noticed SOOoo many proud party affiliates that disavow their own basic tenets that I just have to wonder. If I may… Once more we have a request for a legal intervention of the Federal Government to impose a specific language on the entire country. Now, first off, despite my verbosity, I really wouldn’t mind everyone speaking in a tongue I could decipher. I’ve been all over the world but simply don’t have a head for languages. I seem to get by with gestures; although there have been some close calls there. But, the Party Pacaderm members have always touted their dislike for Big Government; would that be an aka “Big Brother”? So, I find it strange to contemplate a PP making this request. And the Blue Dogs are supposedly the advocates of the illegals, so they are not likely to mind… Personally, I hope one day to visit New Orleans, preferably after its restoration but still showing it characteristic Cajun personality; bipolar as it may seem. Or perhaps Little Italy, San Antonio, or even the Alaska of the Inuits... Seems to me that making English required is unnecessary and takes a lot of fun out of being an American. Still, I’ve read of American firefighter team supervisors losing their jobs since they can’t communicate with their Hispanic firefighting teams. I DO believe there are lines that should not be crossed; and that seems a good one. The military has BSEP and that may help. A Basic Skills Education Program may be a way for a municipality or state to get their employees talking. And public service personnel like taxi drivers will just need to leave for their own economic survival. Tip off Posted May 5, 2008 5:03 PM
